lol.. i dont see how it's "evil" -- haha... its like your 10 and trying to tell a scary story to your friends in your home made fort in your room.
maybe you should all sneak downstairs and make pizza rolls like in that commercial.... hahaha...

same sex marriage has nothing to do with people who are straight. why bother being so narrowminded.. what a waste of energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
=)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&feature=related

and for more laughs.

lol.. i dont see how it's "evil" -- haha... its like your 10 and trying to tell a scary story to your friends in your home made fort in your room.

You don't see that it's evil because you have been given over to a reprobate mind and suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Recognizing that evil exists in the world is not equivalent to the musings of a 10 year-old telling a scary story to his friends. That you would say something like that is indicative of how you apparently haven't seen the world for what it really is.

same sex marriage has nothing to do with people who are straight. why bother being so narrowminded.. what a waste of energy

So having ethical standards means that you're "narrow-minded"? On what basis can you make that claim? To simply call something you don't agree with "narrow-minded" is intellectually lazy and shows that you can't muster an actual argument.

I don't see the "evil" because i see things as peoples choices in life.
the downfall of having a brain that allows humans to have choices is that sometimes people just.. do things that hurt others. It happens. Doesn't make it right but it does.

You can have your own standards. If you think marriage should be between and man and woman, then you marry a woman, you have a good life with her, raise a family if you wish and live your lives. However, i dont see how standards of your choice means youre right. I also don't see why it means you can spend so much time telling people they shouldn't be allowed to do something. If you feel the need to try and force your views as the right on, then yes, its narrow minded.

I tolerate those who believe marriage is for a man and woman, and i believe if people want to marry and have a family, raise kids and live their lives regardless of gender they should be. But i also dont start fourms all over the net, or write entries dedicated to such a topic, i dont feel the need to talk about my beliefs constantly.. its just a huge waste of energy to me.

I said the same thing to my co worker susan. She doesn't like giving oral sex. I do. People have their own preferences.

And before i get a response back about how /you/ aren't doing these things, i am talking in general context.

I don't see the "evil" because i see things as peoples choices in life.

So all choices in life are automatically considered ethical?

However, i dont see how standards of your choice means youre right.

You're assuming that the ethical standards I adhere to are inherently individualistic in nature and they're not. I reject any notion of individual morality in which morality differs from one person to another. Essentially, you're denying any sort of ethics whatsoever.

I also don't see why it means you can spend so much time telling people they shouldn't be allowed to do something.

I didn't know that I did spend "so much time" doing that. You act like I'm some kind of jeremiad who just goes around harping on homosexuals for being homosexuals. I assure you that's not the case, regardless of whatever straw-man you're attempting to create.

If you feel the need to try and force your views as the right on, then yes, its narrow minded.

How am I forcing my views onto others? That's impossible. I can't force someone to believe the same things that I do.

But i also dont start fourms all over the net, or write entries dedicated to such a topic, i dont feel the need to talk about my beliefs constantly.. its just a huge waste of energy to me.

Then why are you on this forum? I can't be sure, but it might be connected to the fact that I have yet to hear you articulate your presuppositions and worldview in any meaningful way.

again i said i was talking generally.

Josh, you're going to have to realize that a rather large number of people on this site, and in the world, do not reflect your religious beliefs, so when you make an opinion statement of gay unions being evil and appear to pass it as an absolute, people are going to get offended, and on occasion make condescending or even outright hostile remarks.

I have a hard time seeing homosexuals as being "evil" because how can love ever be evil? I'm not talking about lust, or narcissism, or the perversions of love, but pure, actual love. The desire for the well-being of another individual regardless of the detriment and consequences to oneself. Selfless, pure love. How can that ever be evil?

Josh, you're going to have to realize that a rather large number of people on this site, and in the world, do not reflect your religious beliefs, so when you make an opinion statement of gay unions being evil and appear to pass it as an absolute, people are going to get offended, and on occasion make condescending or even outright hostile remarks.

I fully understand that people aren't going to agree with what I'm saying. How does that fact make me condescending? I'm simply arguing on the basis of my presuppositions. I'm not going to compromise my worldview and water down what I have to say simply because others don't share my presuppositions. Homosexuality is evil. Murder is evil. Theft is evil. The reason people think I'm being "condescending" is because they're used to hearing evidentialist arguments, not presuppositional ones. And they don't know how to react.

Yes, I do indeed believe that homosexual behavior is evil and that this is an absolute truth. Yet I'm not talking down to anyone when I'm saying that. I'm not implying that those who believe otherwise are less intelligent or anything like that, so how is it that I'm acting in a condescending manner? Meanwhile, fellow forum poster Krisstah can state that everyone who disagrees with her on this issue is "narrow-minded" and yet you say nothing about that. You want condescending marks? They're here on the forum, but they aren't coming from me.

I have a hard time seeing homosexuals as being "evil" because how can love ever be evil?

This is not love at all. Love can only exist within an ethical framework. Any action done outside of the transcendent moral law cannot be considered love. Moreover, you misquoted me. I didn't say that homosexuals are exclusively evil. I said that homosexual behavior is evil. To be fair, all human beings (myself included) are evil. Human nature is inherently corrupt and we exist in a state of total depravity.

I'm not talking about lust, or narcissism, or the perversions of love, but pure, actual love.

You talk about "love," but you can't actually define it. You have said what it is not, but you haven't said what it actually is. I see homosexuality as lust and a perversion of love. You see it differently. Why is that? Because we're both coming at this from different presuppositions.

The desire for the well-being of another individual regardless of the detriment and consequences to oneself. Selfless, pure love. How can that ever be evil?

You're forgetting that there are different types of love. Agape love is not the same as eros love. I can genuinely love a person of the same sex in the sense that he is my friend and I act selflessly on his behalf. However, all of that changes when that relationship turns sexual, because at that point we are both transgressing a transcendent moral law. I may "feel" as though I love him in that way, but our feelings do not determine what is ethical. As fallen creatures, our feelings betray us. Our hearts are corrupt. You're using a very broad criteria to discern A) what love is, and B) how it ought to be properly expressed.

I didn't say you were condescending, I said others will reply in such a manner on occasion. As for the "evil" mention, you had stated you saw gay marriage as being evil, not the behavior. I see marriage as a testament of will, sharing love and life in the ultimate statement to the world. Therefore, I was questioning how such a union could be evil, if it was made as a commitment to support and love unconditionally.

As for the "evil" mention, you had stated you saw gay marriage as being evil, not the behavior.

That's not what I said at all. Same-sex "marriage" is evil as it *is* homosexual behavior. They're spitting on God's law and attempting to affirm something that doesn't exist.

I see marriage as a testament of will, sharing love and life in the ultimate statement to the world. Therefore, I was questioning how such a union could be evil, if it was made as a commitment to support and love unconditionally

Committing to support someone and love him unconditionally is not limited to marriage. Marriage is different because it's speaking to romantic, sexual love as opposed to other types of love. A homosexual union that pretends to be marriage is evil precisely because it's an unethical expression of human sexuality. It is not a valid alternative lifestyle.

Love is love.

Man + Man
Woman + Woman
Man + Woman.

It has nothing to do with god.

Love is love.

On what presuppositions do you define love?

It has nothing to do with god.

On the contrary, true love would not exist apart from God. So God has everything to do with it.

You can't base your argument on something only you believe. The discussion can't continue that way.

You can't base your argument on something only you believe. The discussion can't continue that way.

Sure I can. It's called presuppositionalism.

Are you saying that she's been unclear about her religion? Either that or you're using that word incorrectly.

Are you saying that she's been unclear about her religion? Either that or you're using that word incorrectly.

No, I'm saying that I'm not going to argue this using evidentialism.

Your "ism" words aren't actually words, and you're coming off as pretentious and condescending.

Anyway, you can't argue religion with evidence because there is no evidence aside from some people suffering from the placebo effect claiming to see Jesus in their dreams or claiming to have their prayers directly answered. I don't see what any of this has to do with the legality of marriage. You have it right, the legal system should be completely eliminated from marriage. That way each individual church could make the decision as to who they will and wont marry.

Your "ism" words aren't actually words, and you're coming off as pretentious and condescending.

Really? Go look them up yourself. They're actual words. In fact, they're two different schools of argumentation. I'm simply saying that I prefer presuppositionalism because it is more consistent than evidentialism. And describing these two schools of argumentation doesn't make me pretentious and condescending.

Anyway, you can't argue religion with evidence because there is no evidence aside from some people suffering from the placebo effect claiming to see Jesus in their dreams or claiming to have their prayers directly answered.

I have never heard of any legitimate conversion experience involving someone "seeing Jesus in their dreams." Don't know where that came from. And yes, there is evidence, but the problem is that evidence by itself is not an argument. Everyone interprets facts differently according to their own respective presuppositions.

Evidence IS an argument when you're arguing whether or not something exists.

And yes, there is evidence

Care to share with the class? A solid piece of hard evidence could end the debate right now, assuming it's coming from a credible source.

Evidence IS an argument when you're arguing whether or not something exists.

Okay, then what are we trying to determine in that regard? What is the question?

Care to share with the class? A solid piece of hard evidence could end the debate right now, assuming it's coming from a credible source.

Which debate are we talking about? Are we still debating the homosexual issue or are we debating something else now?

The discussion between you and myself had nothing to do with homosexual marriage. You and I are in agreement, somewhat, for different reasons. It's been about your beliefs. You can't argue Christian logic and quote scriptures as an argument to someone who isn't Christian.

Well, I suppose you could, but it's a waste of time.

It's been about your beliefs. You can't argue Christian logic and quote scriptures as an argument to someone who isn't Christian.

It's definitely true that the unregenerate individual will care nothing for the Scriptures. God's law means nothing to man in his fallen state. I'm fully aware of that.

However, I'm simply pointing out that I'm not an evidentialist in how I argue these things. The evidentialist (which is what most social conservatives are) is going to quote all sorts of statistics and so forth which supposedly show that homosexuality is destructive to society. All of that very well may be true, but none of that answers the ultimate question of whether homosexual behavior is ethical. I'm not going to resort to the methods of philosophical naturalists in order to engage in this discussion.

God is love so evidently is does.